However, this is not the issue for, fundamentally, the terms of something given as a benefit to the disabled, and not available to those not disabled, cannot be less favourable treatment related to disability. "Even if the value of the £50,000 a year halved over 30 years, it is still a very substantial benefit. That IBM's Disability Plan is not more generous is "not disability discrimination," said Judge Housego. That this is by reason of disability does not alter that fact." The disabled transferred to the Plan are treated more favourably than those not disabled, for they do not have to work. This contention is not sustainable because only the disabled can benefit from the plan. "The claim is that the absence of increase in salary is disability discrimination because it is less favourable treatment than afforded those not disabled. IBM manager sues for $5m claiming postnatal demotion.IBM top brass accused again of using mainframes to prop up Watson, cloud sales.Workday sued over its AI job screening tool, candidate claims discrimination.Kyndryl, IBM sued for age discrimination by former global software director."The complaint is in fact that the benefit of being an inactive employee on the Plan is not generous enough, because the payments have been at a fixed level since 6 April 2013, now 10 years, and may remain so. "That active employees may get pay rises, but inactive employees do not is a difference, but is not, in my judgment, a detriment caused by something arising from disability. Judge Housego agreed and the claims were struck out as they had "no reasonable prospect of success." As he was not allowed to take holiday, this could therefore not be carried over. IBM asked for the case to be struck out, saying that much of the claims were out of time and the compromise agreement barred Clifford from re-litigating claims including holiday entitlement. That was not achieved if payments were for ever frozen." The point of the Plan was to give security to employees not able to work. With inflation now running at over 10 percent the value of the payments would soon wither. Clifford's submission stated: "While the Plan referred to discretion to review payments under the Plan, not giving a right to a review or an increase, it was disability discrimination not to increase the payments in the years since 2013.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |